are you completely crazy in my office quickly? explain the investigator

and the essence is why we came. we need to check this warehouse before they move the drugs again. a hundred p went to understand i want to. how did you even come out to these people above len, we are wasting time. he didn't make it.

at home, he will not go anywhere.

and what will be the next surprise? i'm waiting. where did you

get those handcuffs? to do chumakov about you and even if everything is translated now , this is

a big game on the air today , russian foreign minister sergei lavrov spoke in the state duma where he spoke about new principles of russian foreign policy, it was a very dramatic performance. i personally have never heard. er, lavrov is so critical of western policy regarding what the west is doing with regard to russia and more broadly in the international arena. let's hear what the minister said about the need to end the monopoly of the west . grossly trampling on this fundamental principle of civilized interstate communication. the united states and their allies are obsessed with a maniacal desire to revive, not evading unipolar worlds of order.

interfere with the objective process of the formation and rise of new world cents, and all this in the hope and beyond. as noted by president putin speaks in the crimea on the thirtieth of september last year to collect the present tribute to humanity to extract the rent of the hegemon. and then the minister of foreign affairs of russia, again in a very firm form. e said that for moscow those rules that the west is trying to impose on the world are categorically unacceptable. the rules that washington, london, brussels have created and are creating each time in a new way for themselves and therefore, it is natural that three-quarters of the world's states did not join the anti-russian sanctions and took a balanced position regarding the situation in ukraine , which they rightly consider not

in isolation, but in the context of a long- awaited one. from the aggressive course of nato to the aggressive course of nato, the crisis of european security as a whole, as the leader of the people's republic of china emphasized, we need to ensure the indivisibility of security on a global scale. alexander dugin is a philosopher, professor , publicist and, probably, a person who can now feel that he was largely a prophet. you somehow do not remind that you have already said, you warned. in general, you were, uh, ahead of almost everyone who talked about the fact that the collective west, a plans, can be carried out, but such a massive campaign against russia, what do you think is happening

today, and most importantly, what is the purpose of this campaign? you know, if we were to pay close attention to what uh western strategy says , american strategies and right and left and soft and hard we would come to the same the conclusion itself does not need to be a prophet for this . you just need to love your country, be independent and soberly assess what is happening in the arena. and in the international arena , after the end of the ussr, a unipolar world developed and the west perceived it as its absolute victory, theories of the idea of ​​various kinds of strategies arose that were supposed to consolidate this victory, which were supposed to deepen it to make it irreversible fundamental and no one in the west argues with this at all .

domination, global or global dominance of liberal values ​​was something obvious for the west. and from that moment, when i was tired, the first publication against the unipolar measure of the transunipolar world in the early nineties, even at the end of the eighties, still in the buildings of alexander andreyevich prokhanov, my good friend, when i began to publish this went against the whole mood of our society, because i think, well, how the west is fine, and not peaceful, we disarmed. they are now directing to helping hands we will become a part civilized world. we will finish with totalitarianism, there will be democracy, but from the point of view of the analysis of western strategy, then these lanes were already full of voices about the expansion of nato to the east, the destruction of any obstacles to building a unipolar world. and we are now dealing with the fact that with the logical conclusion of this model, while we obeyed we were articulated we were suppressed we were, colonized, established their hegemony

over peacefully. we didn't notice. well, well, as soon as we were indignant, and it started from the way. putin said, you know, let your value and universal, we began to speak so neatly when we came to power. but we want us to be sovereign the west - well, what does it mean to be sovereign sovereign - it means to be independent of this global model. it means no longer being unipolar, so i think that the gradual maturation of our leadership of vladimirovich putin and his consciousness of the fundamental uncompromising hegemony of the west, which can only be stopped by force. here on these e steps. we went to the situation in which we found ourselves, and exactly a year back after the start of well, as if everyone was looking for masks, guys. if you do not disappear, now immediately, just completely forget about your sovereignty, then you will pay them for this and this open confrontation has begun. that is, what was clear to geopoliticians by a specialist in strategic

issues. just someone who looked soberly, soberly without any without any greasy. yes, or here without hatred for the west without much hysterical patriotism. just soberly looked at things, it was clear that sooner or later. we will go to war with the west. this there will be a most serious, like, third world , absolutely unpredictable result, because very large forces are colliding with each other. and if the west, of course, followed the path of trump and said, we accept some kind of european multipolarity. i saw populism somewhere. well, that's impossible. that is, they tried to do something to avoid this confrontation ; the globalist elite returned to polyarnaya along with biden. well, we ended up in the same great war of the continents, which lasted all these 30 years after our alignment. they wanted to strengthen their multipolarity. we tried to defend our sovereignty. and now it has become clear that the sovereignty of the current event. no one will let us

defend or we will defend sovereignty, but it will be a different world order, or we will. lavrov vladimir vladimirovich putin on september 30 and at the valdai club today this is recognized by our elite the big game from morning to evening from beginning to end is already building its discourse on the basis of understanding this objective picture. i don't think it should be here prophet. you just have to be independent really objective and country loving thinker you know, of course, and in the united states there were people who warned about the possibility of such a turn of events, the most famous of these people, of course, who uh very uh, firmly expected that the course nato expansion will lead to a crisis with russia, and that's about the turn of events that we are seeing today, i

knew richardnikson well, who traveled a lot, and russia at the end. uh, eighties - early nineties and he in his last book he wrote about the danger of supporting russian radicals. that this could be a boomerang for the united states and that subduing or attempting to subjugate a great country like russia by american priority and the imposition of american values ​​could end badly. it seems to me that president george bukhtarshay and especially his national security adviser brand scouters shared this position in stone, and especially nixon and and i think that if husband were re-elected, then i think that american foreign policy could be somewhat different. i'm saying this because i don't think i know

if you would agree with this. but why does history not develop in a straight line? that she has zigzags, that she has some kind of cycles? and that's what happened to american foreign policy. oh, it wasn't predetermined, that it wasn't inevitable, but it is, and here is the interaction between the american on if you want commitment to the idea of ​​an exclusive mission and hegemony, and the way russia willingly submitted. and this idea in the nineties and at the same time the european union evolved from a trade organization dealing in tariffs actually want, if i say crusade. this has led to the fact that, as it seems to me, at the head of the collective west, it turned out to be in power. here is such

a globalist hegemonic, which is afraid of russia and china and when they challenge e, but the world order organized by the west. they are afraid, but on the other hand. they have this incredible sense of moral superiority. and that's what i want to ask you, if this is an analysis. fair for me, it is important not so much to agree with historical part, but with the current intentions of the collective west, this creates a question. and here is how you can agree. now, if you are arguing about some specific , e piece of territory about some kind of trade agreements, then it is clear that you are divided by specific issues on which reasonable people can seek compromises, but is a compromise possible by the collective west? today , you know, if we imagined, well, as if

two two powers, two forces that are arguing about control over this or that zone of influence on this or that really international trade issues, it is always possible to negotiate. you yourself know very well in international relations. there is such a theory of realism. that is, it doesn’t matter who you are, you are good or bad, you have a monarchy or democracy, your hands are cut off for theft, how abundantly right, on the contrary, lgbt people roam there, and it doesn’t matter the demonstrations, we take modulo what you can, what you want and let’s watch realistic who? this is a realistic position here , you can always agree and you can fight and make peace, but when we have dealing with liberalism in international relations. this is another model that claims that anyone who deviates from western democracy should be punished and destroyed we are dealing with uh, such a force that it is impossible to speak only on its terms. that is , stop being a sovereign state. we

will agree with you. stop defending your own identity, and we will meet you halfway and open our technologies for you, but you will no longer exist. you will be part of us and here in such a model, which is the basis it is theoretically impossible for those who want to preserve their sovereignty to reach an agreement between american unipolar hegemony and liberalism in its current state, only forces, that is, well, we are now in such a situation that if we defend ourselves, then the world will be different and china will draw conclusions from this and europe will even draw conclusions and miika , the trumpian conservative in old america , will conclude that in fact the russians did not defeat america or the west, the russians defeated the liberals, who are now establishing their global hegemony and holding on to it tougher than any. uh, it turned out, therefore, of course, in a different situation. don't be this top. i agree with her analysis do not be the top of the relationship with the west. they could

have been built according to a completely different principle, even if we were in conflict, and even if we were at war, but it would be a war of forms. now the west has declared total war on us. that's why the crusade. if you are not liberals, and if you do not understand liberalism the way you do, you must die. here is the message of the world that we can count on from the current uh, the owners of the white house washington, this is serious. this is an ideology. it’s almost like communism or fascism, that is, it’s a real totalitarian ideology, those who are not with us , those who are not gbt, those who are not separate, not for radical feminism, not for artificial intelligence, everyone should die, those are called fascists. there, communists-stalinists, labels are glued, they are wiped off the face of the earth. actually. it is with this west that we have in mind and the harshest words of our president are directed against it. and lavrov they are just against the west, just to the west, and our

president and minister are very good, but not to this ideological elite, which actually took the west hostage. that is, we are fighting against those liberal terrorists who have taken western society and the people of the west and western countries hostage and are now waging a real war of annihilation with us and the rest of the world, which claims a different vision of the future. that's the gravity of that situation. we are nikolai rybakov, chairman of the e apple party. uh, very interesting parties in russian history again, we all have a short historical memory. but when grigory yavlinsky was in the government of russia, he opposed those measures that could lead to the collapse of the soviet union grigory yavlinsky opposed the agreement on belovezhskaya pushcha is to a large extent the reason for the current

events. quite right. and now, uh, your party, you pancake, you have come up with a new important initiative. let's hear what you recently wrote. 2022 is the year breaking ties with so many countries of the world in the year of the formation of the international situation blocking access to many information resources, apple is convinced that the restoration of the situation is possible only within the framework of achieving peace and a ceasefire agreement. here. uh, what i'm interested in now, especially not how much. oh your suggestion. eh, really in the context of current russian priorities. it certainly differs from the official russian policy, of course. but as far as i know, uh, you were not subjected to this here. occasion, not only no repression. well, in general, no serious criticism. you

have a point of view, you presented it, and from my point of view, even during the war, such proposals are constructive. well, that's what struck me nikolai. this is the reaction to your proposal in the west, because the apple is the only russian political party that is clearly stable liberal. yes, your party is also the only one, the liberal so -called russian party, which has consistently defended patriotic positions on the one hand, but on the other. i would say western values. european values ​​and russia as a part of these european ones? yes, well, here, it would seem that you are taking such an initiative. it was picked up somewhere, supported somewhere you were invited to speak in some european parliaments dmitry well , i must say that we are taking advantage of the opportunity that we have to convey

our position, including through the air through social networks. e, through the communication that exists between the parties e in russia and in europe, which is still preserved by report our position. uh. we are well aware that the position that there is nothing more important than human life is not the most popular now, uh, not in russia, uh, not in western society, and in this, unfortunately. uh, russia and uh, an absolutely large part of european and uh, western society is similar, which is what we are trying to prove. that there is nothing and cannot be nothing is more important than human life and impossible. uh, in which i absolutely disagree with alexander that it is impossible. the victory of force is possible, a short-term achievement of those or other results on the battlefield. that no one doubts. this may be a very high price, but an achievement.

in a world of strategic peace, achieving the future of a country as we see it, a modern developed state is impossible. all wars end, either with the victory of one country, which usually also includes a diplomatic option, which is called capitulation, or some kind of agreements. and uh, as far as i remember, and in december 21, russia offered. yes, washington is saying that the russian proposals were absolutely unacceptable to me. the answer to that was, uh, there were such far-reaching proposals, but it didn't seem to me that these proposals in any way prevented us from negotiating and seeing. is it possible to find a compromise? there was a categorical refusal, when

the special operation began, as a result, you know that negotiations between russia began. quite right, and russia was ready to show considerable diplomatic flexibility. in general. this is universally recognized by everyone, but then it turned out that zelensky and his western patrons of this e did not mean russia either. supported the participants of the minsk agreements. and now it turned out that not poroshenko nor his successor. uh, zelensky did not mean this, but the agreement to examine. that you had the full support of the collective west. therefore, the problem with your position is not that it is a good idea to have peace, but that, in principle, the idea of ​​a ceasefire, that it is, as it were, is vicious in itself. i'm just looking

at the real position. west i want to ask you, did you get some element of hope based on how they reacted your initiative that you could say shows russia that a negotiated solution is possible at this stage, well, if we didn't hope for the best, uh , it probably wouldn't be worth getting into, uh, politics at all. and maybe even live, but i can say what is the reason for and, uh, all those, uh , all this sequence of events that you said, yes, not a response to the ultimatum uh of the twenty-first year, but an ultimatum. well, it wasn’t called, everyone understands that there, uh, they say, you are obliged to follow this, or well, russia was completely i can say that the negotiations on this issue are very serious.

uh, the reason uh, global, including, again, both western society and russian society, does not support the position on the immediate ceasefire agreement is that everyone believes that president putin, uh, speaking uh, with certain speeches declares one position or another. well, that's practically a quote from so many publications bluffing or er. takes takes on a fright, but this is not what you hear from the russian government correctly no the russian government of the russian federation of the russian federation of the russian government, but it is more, so to speak , bureaucratic more strict agents. well, everything to me, i say collectively, very many even in the west and left russia they are absolutely convinced that vladimir putin is bluffing that russia will use force, we went to the polls, apple 21 years old, the only party was, which

warned about such a development , such a future development, everyone says that you are escalating it is impossible. now is the time the main thing is the issue of corruption, which, of course, is important there are more important things in russia and therefore in general. uh, when putin is the minister. lavrov despite what is obvious we do not agree with the exposition. we in russia are striving for this position to be changed, but we must be aware of what they are? eh, not even them let's be specific. and vladimir putin that he speaks in advance about his position. he spoke about this in a well-known article program on the kremlin website about ukraine and a historical article. eh, she was talking about it when the list was made. some united russia in the elections to the duma , which was headed by the minister of defense, that is, it was said many times that we are not joking and the situation is very, very, uh, difficult, and in general for and for the world as a whole. uh, you need to understand that it is necessary to take action in the field of nuclear security, about which everyone is absolutely

convinced that it is not necessary. it's perfect. e no. such a danger. there is such a danger and it is critically important for the future of us and europe and the western world as a whole and ukraine in order to stop the death of people, here remember this for everyone who is now talking about what is not needed. no ceasefire agreement, we'll all uh, win fight. here are the ones mentioned. uh, foreign agents believe that this way they will definitely overthrow putin is not building, but in russia , political parties, uh. uh, through elections, through convincing people that they are right. but this will help, at what cost. and it doesn't matter. what is the price, as you know. well, i will say that i personally believe that at some stage an agreement will be concluded. it is certain if it concluded, i see no reason to if there were any real possibilities

of concluding this agreement. today, i see no reason not to take these possibilities seriously. well, in general, problems. uh, russia is talking about its terms, under which russia would be ready to make peace. and the ukrainian, after all, she puts the question differently. she talks about her conditions in order to negotiate , which i think are two very different things. naturally, when the strange ones are negotiating they don't start a compromise position. they start with your police. but on the other hand. if you don't want to negotiate, at all you say, you have to surrender to me first. you must first yield to me on all fundamental points. and only then will i go to negotiations to find out that you must first agree to bind your government to give up your territories,

agree to pay reparations and admit that the so-called war criminals. an international tribunal will have to be sent, which will be created not even by him, but by the collective west. well that's when you you hear such conditions immediately, it seems to me that it becomes uninteresting to continue the conversation. but that is why we are saying that it is impossible to discuss now, because everyone has their own conditions and there are a lot of parties who believe that there is a list of their own conditions, and therefore the question of a ceasefire agreement cannot be raised depending on the achievement of certain conditions, because it is a matter of long and long. i hope that there will not be some radical uh say the position of the collective west about the preconditions for starting negotiations. so a. well, first of all, uh, rather yes, but from what i understand, i'm very into it. i hope that those statements that we hear in recent days, but with a call to the ukrainian

side. it is not our business the business of the russian party to call for something now. e, ukraine a. but we hear those calls to yours to change the position that you spoke about, but about the conditions for starting negotiations. in my opinion. this is very important with you. here, uh, nikolai said that many, uh, in the west thought and they think that uh, putin bluffing. unfortunately. this is true. so it's absolutely hard for me to believe this, given that russia went on a special operation, that russia had previously liberated crimea, what did russia do with respect to georgia in 2008 ? and what had to be done when there was an invasion of south ossetia georgian, but, nevertheless, really. uh, every time uh the west doesn't get an immediate and some sort of click on the head, maybe not

just a click, they get a feeling. permissiveness is some kind of night blindness. say that's from your point of view eat today. uh, the willingness in the russian leadership to give a tough military response to any pressure on russia is now very popular, especially in recent days , it has become a kind of summing up the total in a year, that is, there is a year ahead of a special military operation in the west. uh, they are trying to turn this year into a kind of continuous victory that was allegedly achieved, that they come up with some goals that we did not set ourselves, they say some milestones that we had to achieve. e, they argue how far we have not approached them, and thus there is a continuous

the belief that russia, uh, is retreating to lose to russia, but at the same time, no one wants to see the reality in this case is that the war that we were drawn into, and you and i. here, probably, everyone will agree that everything- we were drawn into the war, because we avoided to the last. she had her main goals of her, uh, crushing russia, well, at least putting everything into a scenario of a well-known slave scenario. 90 when iraq was dragged into kuwait and that's it. it ended very badly for him and over the next 10 years he was simply strangled in sanctions , it didn’t work out, absolutely nothing more than a whole year of constant e-e build-up of western american participation in this war led to the fact that in general a year. eh, during this year nothing of what was planned took place and just within the framework of this propaganda pumping. as a matter of fact, there is this narrative that russia will not dare. why because on the one hand they understand that it is necessary

to increase all the time, because what has been done not enough. i recall that the number of weapons that have already been transferred since september. in fact, it even exceeds only the amount that they receive under the famous spring offensive. that is, it has already been disposed of. this has already been destroyed and sideya that, in general, with what we are now giving russia can be crushed, this is where absolutely, in my opinion. groundless. at best, it will drag out the war , drag out the war, if we say within the framework. uh, this spring predicted offensive will turn out to be at least some kind of let's say even a local success will allow it in this case, uh, continuously. so to speak, waving tim to try ukrainian. and in this case, i'm talking about. well, you have to understand that now, again, over the past few days, we have been seeing continuous pumping on the topic of this offensive. and i note for us this is not. nothing new. we are not surprised by anything for

the west, this is absolutely not interesting for the mass western man in the street that ukraine is going to attack, the majority in the west opposes its participation in this war those who are? uh, as if the ideas are being pushed during ramstein and others, all the more they know the situation very well, therefore , all this braganda, pumping is needed only for one object for ukraine, ukraine needs to prove and ukraine needs to be convinced that e victory is close and, accordingly, hundreds thousands of people must again go into battle. they need to be thrown into this battle, so they are given equipment, they are given weapons, but it is obvious to everyone that they will not get the effect that they are counting on here, starting to act the incantation that well, even if we cannot advance here, then we will give even more, because russia will definitely not dare to do anything, that is, it is like that. i would say that the self-incantation is going on, and it, indeed,

as they say correctly, absolutely repeats the story that well, i even literally remember. here we have. well, not in this studio many times it sounded literally a month and a half before the start of special operations, when some representatives who came there from europe from ukraine all the time. so what? the west has sent you. well, what are you? something done, so the west went there. so what, you won’t decide on anything, and when february 24 has come. i remember the faces of these people, because, of course, it will be wildly outraged by russia that russia did not live up to their expectations exactly. i remember their absolute amazement and fear of repeating themselves. we have come a very long way in a year, such a dramatic path from a conflict in principle, which can be largely local, which even had a perspective, as we absolutely correctly remembered everything here, it will end in enough negotiations quickly to actually a third world war, which has not yet taken

the form of universality, but has all the signs of a world war, at least in terms of the number of those participants who participate in it and, of course, one must understand what is being done with this war. i would be very happy. if, how to say, there were at least some signs that it is possible to agree on something, the limit of this war can only be reached in a situation in which an absolute dead end sets in, which becomes obvious to everyone who cannot break with the help of any stuffing of weapons or any. eh, as if investing in this war and then it becomes necessary. well, what is called a conversation about a stop and a conversation about a certain line that will separate these parties. will this world go on permanently. this is already an open question. well, what uh is not an open question is that we now have to go on advertising and will be back in just a few minutes and uh, let's hear what washington thinks about this by

defender of the fatherland day hello, nothing. fitin pavel mikhailovich born in 1907 chief of intelligence since february 20 on pervoi , now you have nothing of your own. there is only someone else's . someone else's life.

discounts up to 70% on yandex.market of references buy the price for the treatment and protection against influenza and sars references the price of packaging for the whole family with a 15% discount. big lot chicken and french fries new big megaroll, kfc download the magnet app, play the game and win prizes with the card from the magnet multitrimmers 599 app. give gifts from the heart. the vtb team will offer a solution . it's more familiar. where are you? who to think? will? what is there to think about when there is a deposit in vtb with a rate of up to nine and a half percent with a reliable bank, the day grows much faster, where to run, and details on vtb.ru, and you are

an athlete master of sports to benefit. open a deposit with a maximum yield of up to 9.5% vtb , switch to vtb and everything will work out when the layout is at an impasse. you just need to make up your mind father will help proven developers in all new buildings, just to make up your mind. forte, thanks to vitamin d3, calcium in the composition of the drug is absorbed better and strengthens bone health at different stages of life and hair nails and teeth at different stages of life. love this quality of life. my choice is gloria jeans do you know that

tinkoff investments has a social network for investors, matvey subscribed to high-yield investors and earns like they do? install the tinkoff investment app and earn the largest social networks for investors. he's such a one triple benefit at burger king yes hearty meal in just 1999 just download the magnet app. play the game don't win prizes and don't miss out on three yoghurts.

living with prostatitis is hard, and if fibrosis is added to prostatitis, it's even harder. the smart enzyme langidase helps reduce inflammation and break down fibrosis so symptoms don't reverse longidase's life. just against fibrosis with prostatitis, the recommended course is two packs of a guaranteed rate, and get back part of the percentage. it's like finding money for an old jacket, pay on time, and the post bank will return the difference in money. about the crisis in ukraine, but actually about the campaign

of the collective west against russia good evening, still, i really want to know your perspective on what are the american goals in this conflict with russia and when i say american. of course, i understand that in america there are many different points of view and, uh, i must say, in this case, more specifically. what are the positions of the biden administration and the majority in congress regarding the goal of the conflict with russia, which is increasingly

becoming a war. dmitriy i think we see an evolution, where at the beginning of uh, february 24 uh, the goal was uh very simple. i i think in a sense, uh, financially justified , and it was that uh, ukraine was such yes, and uh, washington’s position is that we should, we washington should help ukraine defend itself, uh, we should, uh, bleed russia as much as possible to ensure maximum favorable conditions on the table negotiations for ukraine and for the west, this was the initial goal. and when we talk about negotiations in turkey in march and april. uh this is something that could have happened, but in the following months something very strange happened

and i think that uh played an important role here russia's difficulties on the battlefield. e in april, where many concluded that it was possible not only to help ukraine defend itself, but to take the crimea and not only take the crimea, but, uh, to carry out a crushing defeat of russia on the battlefield. uh, strategic defeat tactical defeat defeat at all levels. er, on such a scale that russian troops will be weakened for many years to come, so at first this small but realistic goal has turned into, uh, an improvement in an ambitious and, and in the estimates of many, unrealistic goals. and i i think we now see, uh, the last couple

of months. i think the article from washington rather was the beginning of that. we are now seeing again that the people of washington are coming to the realization that this goal is impossible and that it needs to be re-understood, uh, what our strategy was recently your interpolaski had in another article, where, uh, an official, uh, biden administration, put it very interestingly. we all know that famous phrase as long as it takes, but he would tell washington that as long as it takes refers to the duration of the conflict, not the amount help. and this is a very complex formulation. e. i think it is specially phraseologised in a very confusing way, but in essence. it means a very simple thing. this means that america will always be on the side of ukraine. yes, but the level of material support. e. it may

change depending on the circumstances, and uh this is actually a very obvious and simple position, but the fact is that the officials say it out loud. uh, means that again there is a realization that things are not going as people expected, uh in december. november when we they talked about the triumph of ukraine and about the fact that the victory would be on such a scale that there would be no need to negotiate with anyone at all, because it would be, of course, a victory, and we now see. uh, i think they're trying to find a new balance. we don't know what it looks like. and well, i think that uh there is a realization that the next couple of months will be decisive. and that many in washington are not all on many believe that america has done everything that realistic

could and that now ukraine's wife with this with this level of support in the spring to implement some sort of counterattack. and if that doesn't happen, then ukraine will be in a very difficult position and there is very little that america can do about it at this stage. well, this is interesting. uh, what you just said is that on the one hand there is some new consciousness in washington at least. on the part of the ruling washington and the fact that russian difficulties turned out to be temporary, that the situation is different now, that the dynamics on the war field have changed and that ukraine has entered a difficult period, but on the other hand, officials washington do not speak. and let's look for negotiated solutions on this matter. on the contrary, here, as defense

minister alla austin just said that it is necessary to provide all kinds of assistance to ukraine with its offensive, and ukraine says that the goals of the offensive are very broad and at least include the capture of crimea, but, of course, all the territory that is between ukraine and crimea and openly say that in general they will not agree to any agreement that does not lead to a change in the political system in russia and on the walkie-talkie how to avenge this new e- realism this new flexibility that you see the participation of the administration with the support of this kind of ukrainian positions. i think that the short answer now, as it is now, is nothing, but there should be a serious dialogue, not not between the usa and russia, and at this stage, but between the usa and kiev about what is the goal and how this goal

can be realistically achieved, because that uh, you know , many in this city of washington say that we have no right to dictate conditions to kiev and put pressure on them to enter into negotiations. what do i say of course, this is obvious. ukraine, as a sovereign country, has the right to determine its military goals, but we, the united states, as a sovereign country, have the right to determine the parameters and redistribution of our assistance. and so now i think the main negotiations should be between the us and our partners about what can be realistically achieved in and half a year before the summer. until the end of the summer, uh, and here we are talking. as for crimea, here we are talking about the idea of ​​a neutral status , an idea that, by the way, ukraine agreed to in march in april. uh, the idea

of ​​the treaty is that the ban on posting foreign military systems on the territory of ukraine, there are a lot of details here. and if there is political will, uh, seriously discuss them. i think it's possible to come up with a whole range of productive e concepts that can then be powerfully brought to the level of negotiations. uh, with the russian side, exactly what i described. we are not even at the beginning of this debt in the process; here are the judges with us, but the chairman of the apple party, nikolai rybakov. and what, you probably know mark, apple, grigory yavlinsky personally recently initiated you to seek immediate urgent ceasefire, and then uh, using this kind of arrangement already uh, try to reach some kind of broader peace agreement. i'm not aware that at least someone in

washington has shown interest in this initiative . this is a party, the opposition in russia is a party with an impeccable liberal reputation. e, yavlinsky for many years, a was the hero of american liberals, american human rights activists. that is, there was an opportunity, but to show nothing sacrifice. after all, it is always difficult, because rimsky has a complicated relationship with the united states. in such always stood for the interests of russia, then the united states certainly didn’t like it, but this topic is another program, this topic is another program, but uh a person who is consistently unconditionally russia is, someone may not like washington, but if they understand that russia is a sovereign country? what in general? it would seem that these are just those people, uh, in russia, who may have some kind of political future, but under all conditions. that's interesting for me. why? yes , washington did not pay

attention to this proposal, if you see elements of a new realism. this is a very good question. and i will answer, so even the realists and pragmatists in washington believe that now at this stage of the conflict the window for negotiations or even a truce is closed, because in russia they are planning a large earth offensive, and they would not launch this offensive if they did not consider that this would put them in a better position, perhaps for prospective negotiations. i think the window was in november, when they signaled that it might be in october, but how is it worth eating now, and i can’t name a single serious e washington is an expert even in the camp of both realism and pragmatism, who believes that right now you can sit down and actually

agree on something, and this is one of the fears, in principle, around the washington agreements . many say we cannot. allow to sign a truce and enter into some kind of treaty. if there is a threat that this agreement will be violated, therefore, if we start this there must be a high degree of certainty that there will be an agreement and that this agreement will be tempted by the temptation of all parties and now it's not certain because both sides, but i think a lot of russia thinks they can improve their position on the battlefield. and while those who howl have this feeling. eh, it's hard. i'm thinking of implementing uh options for the devil. i would like you, alexander uh, if you uh have a position on this issue, and comment on what mark said or

maybe ask him some question. he brings up a really important topic. how realistic is it to reach an agreement? with the biden administration and according to mark it impossible not slowly, but there is such interest. and you know, i agree that now is absolutely not the time and place to talk about this, neither for us nor for them. well, let's imagine that this map turned red, like this part, this whole circle, then we really have a basis for a truce, but the conditions that russia will arrange further. we can move a little, move a little. we can propose to somehow think about the status of these territories, you hear a different point of view , invite the un secretary general, or, as we see and that's somewhere, when we have it fixed, reliable solid with obvious satisfying us.